WEBVTT WAS CALLED AS THE FIRST DEFENSE WITNESS.>> HAPPY WITH THE WAY THE CASE IS GOING.WE THINK THAT OFFICERrt SPIVEY TESTIFIED VERY WELL AND WE'RE CONFIDENT IN THE CASE.KATE: 29-YEAR-OLD BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE OFFICER CHRISTOPHER SPIVEY TOOK THE STAND IN HISrt OWN DEFENSE TODAY.TESTIMONY BOLSTERED BY HIS TWO FELLOW OFFICERS THAT FOLLOWED.THE THREE MEN, SEEN IN THIS VIDEO TAKEN THE NIGHT OF JANUARYrt25TH, THE NIGHT SPIVEY IS ACCUSED OF ASSAULT.ACCUSED OF USING EXCESSIVE FORCEWHILE APPREHENDING CAR THEFT SUSPECT DEAMONTE rtFARRAR.ALL THREE OFFICERS TOLD THE JURYTHE SAME VERSION OF EVENTS.THAT THE STRIKES HAD TO BE DELIVERED IN ORDER TO GET FARRARIN HANDCUFFS ANDrt BRING AN END TOA SITUATION ESCALATING DANGEROUSLY.>> ONE THING THAT'S COMPLETELY CONSISTENT ABOUT THIS IS ALL THREE OFFICERS THAT WERE INVOLVED AND THEY HAVEN'T SPOKENTO EACrtH OTHER SINCE THE INCIDENTALL THREE OFFICERS THAT WERE INVOLVED PERCEIVE THE SITUATION EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.THAT HE WAS ACTIVELY RESISTING AND rtTHEY ACTED APPROPRIATELY UNDER THEIR TRAINING AND GUIDELINES AND USE OF FORCE.KATE: ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE PROSECUTION TRIED TO PROVE GUILTBY COVER-UP.SPIVEYrt DELIVERED THREE BLOWS TO THE SUSPECT INJURING HIS KNEE INTHE PROCESS.SO WHY DIDN'T HE FILE AN OFFICIAL REPORT ABOUT THAT THE PROSECUTOR ASKED?THE VIDEO SHOWSrt YOU STRIKING A MAN ON THE GROUND.YES, SPIVEY ANSWERED.YOU DID NOT FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO DOCUMENT AND EXPLAIN THE USE OF FORCE?MA'AM, I DON'T THINK I DID ANYTHINGrt WRONG IN THAT VIDEO.ISN'T IT WRONG TO NOT REPORT USEOF FORCE?APPROPRIATE, NECESSARY FORCE, SPIVEY CLARIFIED TOrt GAIN APPREHENSION OF A FELON.AND SPIVEY TESTIFIED THAT HE TOLD HIS DIRECT SUPERVISOR THAT NIGHT AND THEN ANOTHERrt SUPERVISOR THE NEXT DAY THAT HE HAD STRUCK THE SUSPECT AND INJURED HIMSELF IN THE PROCESS AND TODAY, ONE OF TrtHOSE SUPERVISORS TESTIFIED THAT SPIVEY FOLLOWED THE CORRECT PROCEDURES AND CHAIN OF COMMAND

The men testified that the strikes had to be delivered in order to get Farrar in handcuffs and bring an end to a situation escalating dangerously.

"We're happy with the way the case is going. We think that Officer Spivey testified very well, and we're confident in the case," defense attorney Brian Thompson said. "One thing that's completely consistent about this is all three officers that were involved -- and they haven't spoken to each other since the incident -- perceived this situation in exactly the same way, that (Farrar) was actively resisting and they acted appropriately under their training and guidelines for use of force."

Thompson argued that his client, Spivey, delivered three strikes to the suspect in order to get him in handcuffs.

Thompson: "When you delivered those strikes, did you do so with malice?"

Spivey: "No sir."

Thompson: "Why did you deliver those strikes?"

Spivey: "Noncompliance."

Thompson: "Did you deliver them within the scope of your training?"

Spivey: "Yes sir."

Spivey also said he injured his knee in the process, which he reported to a supervisor that night and another one the next day. But on cross-examination, the state tried to expose a coverup, asking why didn't Spivey personally file an official report?

Prosecutor: "The video shows you striking a man on the ground."

Spivey: "Yes."

Prosecutor: "You did not feel it appropriate to document and explain the use of force?"

Spivey: "Ma'am, I don't think I did anything wrong in that video."

Prosecutor: "Isn't it wrong to not report use of force?"

Spivey: "Appropriate, necessary force, to gain apprehension of a felon."

One of the supervisors who was called to the stand testified that Spivey did the right thing when he followed all the proper procedures and the chain of command.

Officer Chris Spivey leaving court after day 2 of his assault trial. Defense plans to ask for acquittal on all charges again tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/Vx7FYO6hSs